Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
League is a harder, more physical game; union is more skilful and tactical. I've played both (league as "training" method) and union was my preference... but then I was one of the backs!England may be on a roll, but that's not hard against Scotland and Italy. Wales are in the ascendence, but have yet to be really tested. In two years time, who knows what the picture will be.However, if you want to see REAL rugby at a high level, watch the Super 12 then the tri-nations. Check out the current South Africa team - my tip for the next World Cup. Then England will benefit, as they retire them young and some will inevitably end up over here. Look at Skinstad, Krige, Vos etc... mark my words, Springboks are the guys to watch!
|
I used to play for my old school, which no longer exists, now a luxury hotel, and have been a coach for a school team, at a school in Zimbabwe, which no longer exists: when I think of the two, union demands intelligent play, it's a thinking game, needs strategy and very it's physical. But I don't want to encourage the which is better debate but rugby union is as far as I know is the tougher game of the two.
As for England's future, the team has had problems, there is now virtually a new team, the victories against Italy & Scotland are building blocks. I agree the problems will be from the southern hemisphere and that England cannot afford to relax but keep practising and who knows?
